Public Bill Committee

[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]

Joan Humble: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with this Bill, copies of which are available in the room. I should also like to remind hon. Members that adequate notice shouldbe given of amendments. As a general rule, I and my co-Chairman do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that are introduced for an afternoon sitting of the Committee. Finally, hon. Members may remove their jackets, as the sun is shining.

Vera Baird: I beg to move,
That—
(1) in addition to its first meeting on Thursday 15th March at 9.00 a.m., the Committee shall meet on—
(a) Thursday 15th March at 1.00 p.m.,
(b) Tuesday 20th March at 10.45 a.m. and 4.00 p.m.,
(c) Thursday 22nd March at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m., and
(d) Tuesday 27th March at 10.45 a.m. and 4.00 p.m.;
(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the order shown below and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 7.00 p.m. on Tuesday 27th March. Clauses 1 and 2; Schedule 1; Clauses 3 and 4; Schedule 2; Clause 5; Schedule 3; Clauses 6 and 7; Schedule 4; Clauses 8 to 22; Schedule 5; Clauses 23 to 36; Schedule 6; Clauses 37 to 44; Schedule 7; Clauses 45 to 47; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 1; Clause 48; Schedules 8 and 9; Clauses 49 and 50; Schedule 10; Clauses 51 to 53; Schedule 11; Clauses 54 to 57; Schedules 12 and 13; Clauses 58 to 81; Schedule 14; Clauses 82 to 85; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 3; Clause 86; Schedule 15; Clauses 87 to 100; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 4; Clause 101; Schedule 16; Clauses 102 and 103; Schedules 17 to 20; Clauses 104 to 108; Schedule 21; Clauses 109 to 128; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 5; Clauses 129 to 133; new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part 6; Clause 134; Schedule 22; Clauses 135 to 141; Schedule 23; Clauses 142 to 144; remaining proceedings on the Bill.
Good morning, Mrs. Humble. I welcome you to the Chair. I am looking forward to renewing the close working relationship that you and I had on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions not so long ago.
I am extremely pleased that the Committee’s programme has been agreed through the usual channels in an amiable way. I am grateful to those who took part in that process. I expect that our proceedings will be pleasant, although I hope not too long an experience. The last time that I served on a Committee, we discussed the Company Law Reform Bill, which had 925 clauses and is the longest Bill that has ever been introduced to Parliament. That Committee was also notable for a further reason: since her child care provision failed, my hon. Friend the Member for  Burnley (Kitty Ussher) had to bring her one-year-old daughter with her to all the sittings. So long were our deliberations that the young girl learned to walk. Indeed, when needing a break, many hon. Members were seen holding the baby’s arms and strutting down the corridor with her. We cannot offer such nice distractions on this Committee, so we shall have to make what positive steps we can.
This is a good Bill. It was well received in the House of Lords, and I pay tribute to my colleague there, Baroness Ashton, whose open-minded, co-operative approach I intend to emulate, since I am sure that the Bill can be improved and that its rationales can be probed so that we understand it better. It will transform the Tribunals Service of this country, which plays such a vital role in relations between the individual and the state, adjudicating independently. It will introduce other beneficial changes to help the indebted who need help and who cannot pay, and enforce debts against those who will not pay. Finally, it will assist the museums and art galleries of the country to obtain loans of cultural objects without risk.
I look forward very much to our deliberations. I welcome my hon. Friends and gentlemen and ladies on the Opposition Benches to the Committee and look forward to some co-operative, helpful and improving work.

Henry Bellingham: It is a pleasure to serve for the first time under your chairmanship, Mrs. Humble.
I certainly endorse what the Minister said about the Bill. We support it in principle and we endorse much of its detail. We wish to probe some matters, and there may even be areas on which we shall push the hon. and learned Lady quite hard, particularly when we reach parts 3 and 4, which deal with bailiffs and powers of entry. In the main, we support the Bill. It has a lot of detail, but if we move at a sensible place I am sure that we shall get through it and give it proper scrutiny. I support the programme motion.

Simon Hughes: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mrs. Humble. This is the first time that I served with you in the Chair, and the first time I have served on a Public Bill Committee as opposed to one of the myriad other predecessor Committees on which—with some exceptions—I have had the pleasure of serving. I share the view of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk that the controversial parts of the Bill come later, in parts 3 and 4.
I should like to raise one further matter, if I may.The Minister has tabled a second motion about evidence, which she will no doubt move in a second. The guidance notes sent to Members on Public Bill Committees state:
“The programme for oral evidence will be included in the programme motion agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee and proposed by the Minister at the first meeting of the Public Bill Committee. The motion is debatable.”
I seek your guidance, Mrs. Humble. I want to propose that we take oral evidence from two organisations, so I assume that that request should come under the next motion for discussion, although the leaflet suggests that it might covered by the one we are considering. I shall take your guidance.

Joan Humble: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to move that proposal, he needs to do so as an amendment to the programme motion. We would need to have the text of any such proposal now.

Simon Hughes: In that case, I shall write the proposal as I speak. I want to submit a manuscript amendment asking that the Committee hear evidence from National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and from the Local Government Association. This relates to the issues in parts 3 and 4—[Interruption.] I find it surprising that some people are so reluctant to see members of our local government family of friends. I have written the proposal, which is not in the best script in the world, but it will do.

Joan Humble: I must tell the Committee that I am not selecting the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Joan Humble: I call the Minister to move the motion to report written evidence.

Ordered,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—[Vera Baird.]

Written evidence to be reported to the House

TRI 2 Paul Nicholson
TRI 5 National Children’s Bureau/The Children’s Legal Centre
TRI 6 Barry Minney
TRI 7 The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
TRI 8 Law Society Scotland
TRI 9 Insolvency Practices Council
TRI 10 Low Income Tax Reform Group
TRI 11 Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW)

Clause 1

Independence of tribunal judiciary

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Vera Baird: The purpose of the clause is manifest. It puts beyond doubt the fact that the tribunal judiciary are independent of the Executive. It does so by ensuring that the duty on the Lord Chancellor and other Ministers of the Crown to uphold the continued judicial independence of the judiciary, which is enshrined in section 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, extends to all the tribunals for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible. That includes the employment tribunals in Scotland and criminal injuries compensation appeal panel adjudicators appointed by Scottish Ministers under section 5 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995. The guarantee also covers non-legal members of tribunals, as well as the legally qualified ones.
 It is right that the Bill begins by making it clear that tribunals have the same constitutional and legal guarantee of independence as the courts, and I ask that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Simon Hughes: Are there any tribunals for which the Lord Chancellor does not have responsibility and which therefore will not be covered by the clause?

Vera Baird: Yes, there are a number. The competition tribunal, for example, will not be covered either by that provision or by the Bill in any other way. All the tribunals that are dealt with by the Bill have this guarantee of independence enshrined in the clause.

Simon Hughes: If, at a later stage, the Minister were to be kind enough to let us have a note detailing the other tribunals that are not covered and to tell us whether they are protected by any similar independence provision, it would be helpful. I do not intend to press the matter further now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Senior President of Tribunals

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Vera Baird: Taken together, this clause and schedule 1 create the post of senior president of tribunals. They set out the procedure for filling that post and provide for him to represent the views of tribunal members—an important provision. We indeed have a “him” designate at the moment, although his post rather than his gender is designated and we hope to turn it quickly into a reality. As I am sure everybody knows, Lord Justice Carnwath is the senior president designate. The clause and schedule closely follow Sir Andrew Leggatt’s recommendation that the leadership of the tribunals system should promote
“by leadership and co-ordination, both consistency of decision-making and uniformity of practice and procedure”.
The senior president will be a free-standing senior judicial official who will oversee the tribunal judiciary, and his powers and duties are set out in the Bill. Furthermore, not only is his office clearly independent of the Executive, but in carrying out his functions, the senior president will not be subject to the direction of the chief justices responsible for the courts. Clause 2 places a duty on the senior president to ensure that tribunals are accessible, that proceedings are fair and are handled quickly and efficiently, that members are expert and that innovative dispute resolution methods are developed in respect of the type of cases that come before tribunals. Those criteria are based on the long-standing principles underlying the jurisdiction of tribunals which go back to the Franks report in the 1950s.
The White Paper “Transforming Public Services: Complaints, Redress and Tribunals” signalled that the senior president would
“provide a clear single voice able to speak for the tribunal judiciary collectively.”
Paragraphs 13 and 14 to schedule 1 enable the senior president to do just that—represent tribunal members’ views to Parliament, to the Lord Chancellor and to Ministers of the Crown generally, giving the tribunals a distinct, unified voice for the first time.
It is crucial to ensure that the right person of the right calibre is appointed. Schedule 1 provides two possible routes by which any vacancy for the senior president position may be filled. The first will be when the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland all agree on the nomination of a lord or lady justice of appeal, or a member of the inner house of Court of Session, as a suitable candidate.
As an alternative, the Lord Chancellor wouldask the Judicial Appointments Commission to selecta candidate for recommendation for appointment.The process for doing that follows as closely as is appropriate the process under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 for appointing heads of division.
The successful candidate will be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. To underpin the independenceof the role, the senior president, unless disabled by a permanent infirmity or incapacitated from resigning, may be removed from office only by Her Majestyon an address presented to her by both Houses of Parliament.

Henry Bellingham: We certainly support this part of the Bill. The hon. and learned Lady made a point about the Judicial Appointments Commission. We supported the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 because one ofthe key principles behind it was the separation of powers—that is, that the process of judicial selection should be totally separate from the Executive. Obviously, taking the power away from the Lord Chancellor and putting it into the hands of the commission was an important part of that Act.
I have a question about the clause. Obviously, the Lord Chancellor himself will appoint the person tothe office of senior president. I take on board the Minister’s point about the default position in respect of the Judicial Appointments Commission, but may I ask how that ties in with the 2005 Act?
I want to make another quick point. We support the whole essence of trying to bring the tribunals together into one consolidated organisation. However, how will Parliament be involved in scrutinising how the new process works? Obviously, we can question Ministers; the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs will call evidence at different times in different inquiries. However, will the Minister comment briefly on how Parliament will be able to scrutinise how the new process will work?

Simon Hughes: The initiative is welcome. Bluntly, the Tribunals Service has long lacked both coherence and co-ordination, and somebody should be seen to be leading it. As we all know from our communities and constituencies, that is an important part of the process. The Tribunals Service probably has more people going through its doors than the courts, and certainly more than the non-criminal courts. Given that some tribunals are territorial, and limited to either England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, I assume  that the implication is that the president looks after and speaks on behalf of all of them. Is it envisagedthat someone will be chosen, who will come under the president, whose particular role will be to speak for the Northern Ireland, Scotland or England and Wales tribunals? In other words, if a particular issue arisesin one of the jurisdictions within the UK, is there someone within the process who will lead on that?

Vera Baird: The appointment is not made by the Lord Chancellor under either route; it is made, on his recommendation, by Her Majesty the Queen. The purpose of outlining the first way forward to the appointment of a senior president is that if an obvious candidate emerges from the judiciary and consequently comes from that independent source, it might be appropriate for the Lord Chancellor, having been consulted, to sanction that appointment. In default of absolute consensus among the judiciary—essentially a proposal coming from the judiciary—it is appropriate that the appointment should be made in the ordinary way by the Judicial Appointments Commission.
If I have understood the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk correctly, he is asking how the Judicial Appointments Commission will be scrutinised by Parliament. My understanding—I shall write to correct it if I am not accurate—is that the commission will prepare an annual report that will be presented to Parliament and debated.
To answer the territorial question asked by the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, the position is that it will be the senior president’s role to make representations on behalf of the tribunals, and he will serve all the jurisdictions. Therefore, he is the voice of the Tribunals Service.
I hope that that has dealt with the questions asked by Opposition Members, and that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

Henry Bellingham: The question that I asked about parliamentary scrutiny was not so much about the appointments process as about the operations of the whole Tribunals Service, and what DCA Ministers will be doing to keep Parliament informed of the new working arrangements.

Vera Baird: The new working arrangements are pretty inchoate at present. There will be extensive consultation as they proceed. A detailed policy statement has been put into the Library. It spells out our intentions regarding the next steps, and states that there will be consultation at every stage. It seems to me to be correct to say that there needs to be some formula by which working practices, once they emerge, can be checked by Parliament to ensure that they are functioning accurately. However, I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman now specifically how that will occur beyond a Member who is troubled raising it in the ordinary way on the Floor of the House. Some provision must be put in place, however, and that will be part of the consultations that will follow.

Tobias Ellwood: I should like to go back to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk. The post was created on the recommendation of Sir Andrew Leggatt, who wanted more unified leadership within the tribunals’ judiciary. My concern is that if we are introducing major changes to the tribunals system, the only people who will see them will be us as Members of Parliament. How is there a connection between us being able to scrutinise those changes to confirm that they have met the objectives that have been sought and to make any adjustments that might be required in six months or a year’s time?

Vera Baird: I think that I now fully understand the cause of concern that both the hon. Gentleman andthe hon. Member for North-West Norfolk have raised. I think that I can reassure them by referring toclause 39(3), which states:
“The Lord Chancellor must annually prepare and lay before each House of Parliament a report as to the way in which he has discharged his general duty in relation to the tribunals”.
That will facilitate scrutiny of the kind that is being referred to.

Tobias Ellwood: That is very helpful. Would that report lead to a debate on the Floor of the House?

Vera Baird: There is no reason why it should not, and it would be wise, particularly in the early years of the tribunals, if it could, because this will be an emerging structure and set of powers, so it will be worth keeping it under close scrutiny.

Tobias Ellwood: Subject to the usual channels, I suppose.

Vera Baird: I am sure. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman is a usual channel, I understand.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 3

The First-tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Vera Baird: Clause 3 provides for the creation of two new generic tribunals—a first-tier tribunal and an upper tribunal—over which the senior president will preside. The upper tribunal is to be a superior court of record. Each tribunal will consist of judges—its legally qualified members—and other members. Establishing a single, two-tier structure for tribunals will lead to a simpler, more coherent tribunals system that will be flexible enough to accommodate the needs of different users and different jurisdictions, both now and in the future.
The first-tier tribunal will be the first instance tribunal, and will hear appeals from the original decision-making body. The upper tribunal will be primarily, but not exclusively, an appellate tribunal from the first tier. Both are intended to be adaptable and able to take on any existing or new tribunal jurisdictions. In future, when Parliament decides to create a new appeal right or jurisdiction, it will not need to create a new tribunal to administer it.
Because of its specialist nature, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal will act as a separate pillar of the new structure outside the new legal framework, although the Bill is sufficiently flexible to allow for future transfer if appropriate. We would not, however, exercise that ability to transfer unless the Home Secretary agreed, and as the tribunal will remain outside the new generic tribunals, the associated rule-making power will also remain with the Lord Chancellor in respect of the AIT and not move to the new tribunal procedure committee.
For similar reasons, the employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal will also act as separate pillars of the new structure, remaining outside the new framework for the unified system, but the AIT and the EAT will still enjoy the benefits of the single administrative structure of the Tribunals Service.
Those reforms will ensure that, as Sir Andrew Leggatt recommended, tribunals will be independent and separate from the Departments that make the decisions under review. They will deliver more than just a federation of existing tribunals. They will produce a framework within which tribunal users will be ableto benefit from authoritative, timely, consistent and comprehensible decisions. They will deliver a cost-efficient system providing good value for the taxpayer, and as Sir Andrew Leggatt prescribed, they will be fit for the users for which they are intended.

Simon Hughes: I should be grateful if the Minister would put on the record the reason for not including the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal in the system. She has explained that the Home Office has an interest—it clearly does—and that the tribunal can be brought back, but she has not given the reasons why the system is not the same as for all the other tribunals.

Vera Baird: The AIT was set up a very short time ago, under specific legislation designed to providewhat we believe is the appropriate model. That understanding and determination has not changed. This is the right model for the immigration and asylum jurisdiction. If in due course it looks appropriate, there is flexibility to bring it in, but that is not our intention now.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Judges and other members of the First-tier Tribunal

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 2,in clause 4, page 3, line 6, leave out ‘judge’ and insert ‘legal member’.
The essence of the amendment concerns the use of the word “judge”. The Committee will recall that Sir Andrew Leggatt was at great pains to emphasise that tribunals exist for users, as the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey pointed out. Tribunals  need to be accessible. Day in, day out, we meet people in our constituencies who have had experience of tribunals. In fact, many more of our constituents go to tribunals than go to court. The point of tribunals is that they should be unthreatening and consumer-friendly. There is a huge responsibility on the chairman of the tribunal to ensure that the conduct of its affairs is as informal as possible. That is why we are keen to ensure that everything about tribunals should be relaxed and consumer-friendly.
Does the Minister feel that the use of the word “judge” is appropriate in those circumstances? I can understand that there are plenty of chairs of tribunals who like calling themselves judges. The other day I met someone at a social event about whom everyone was muttering, “My goodness, he’s a judge”. It was all hugely exciting and good for his ego, but in fact he was chairing a tribunal. I submit that those chairs of tribunals of course do a superb job. I do not suggest for a moment that we should try to undermine their standing and credibility in any way. If it makes them feel better to tell their friends that they are judges, all well and good. However, should the users of tribunals, who are our constituents, feel that there is that extra layer of formality inherent in the use of the word “judge”? I would say probably not.
The other important point is that the Lord Chancellor has the power to appoint people with no legal qualifications whatever as legal members of tribunals. Those people may well become chairs of those tribunals. We do not necessarily object to that, but if people are appointed to tribunals as legal members, yet have no legal experience whatever, should they call themselves judges? I suggest to the Minister that that would not really be appropriate.
Earlier we discussed the importance of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the essence of which is the separation of powers so that judicial selection should be entirely free of the Executive. However,we find a member of the Executive—the Lord Chancellor—able to designate individuals as judges, in complete contravention of all the principles of that Act. How can a member of the Executive appoint a judge, when that plainly breaches the principle of the separation of powers to which the Government claim to be so attached?
If we are keen, as we are, to maintain an atmosphere of informality and want to make the tribunals as user-friendly as possible to our constituents, the Minister should accept the minor change proposed in the amendment, which would be in the interests of the tribunal system.

Simon Hughes: I am sympathetic to the amendment. In the immigration service, the person at the first tier is called the adjudicator and the person at the second tier, as the Minister will know, is called—
 Vera Baird indicated dissent.

Simon Hughes: I stand to be corrected.

Vera Baird: We changed their names to judges some time ago.

Simon Hughes: In that case, I stand corrected; but the general point holds. We are having a two-tier system—that has been agreed by the Committee and it is sensible. The Tribunals Service is meant to be less formal. There is a strong case for having a perfectly proper and respectable title at the lower level, but something other than “judge”. Some people are not legally qualified, which is perfectly acceptable. The title of chair of an employment, industrial or social security tribunal and so on seems entirely appropriate. I would be interested to hear what assessment has been made of the benefit of a more legal title at the lowest level.

Vera Baird: Unlike the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk, I do not mind if calling people judges makes them happier. I think that people should be happier if they can be. We in the Labour party want to let the sun shine in on all possible occasions.
Calling somebody a judge has absolutely nothing to do with who appoints them or how they are qualified, and it certainly does not have the remotest relationship with the separation of the Executive and the judiciary, which we promoted in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Although the hon. Gentleman now talks about how the Opposition supported the Judicial Appointments Commission, they were actually dragged screaming to that agreement. There is nothing about calling someone a judge that compromises the independence of the way in which they are appointed.
The process is well under way. The hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey hoped to find an analogy with something that has already disappeared. Immigration adjudicators are now called judges. People who used to be called stipendiary magistrates are now called district judges, as are those who were known as registrars in the county court. There are cost judges who adjudicate on lawyers’ fees, and there are even judges in the Eurovision song contest, some of whom usually award nil points to us. There are a lot of good aspects to the proposal to call these individuals judges. The term “judge” describes exactly what the post holders will do. They will make decisions about people’s rights and about Government responsibilities.
The purpose of creating a new title is to give consistency across a wide range of jurisdictions. Currently, legally qualified members are known by a range of titles, including commissioner, president, adjudicator, panel chairman, umpire and even member, which I thought very funny when I was younger. Those titles do not convey a clear picture about who the titleholders are or what they do. Nor do they convey the fundamental message that tribunals are independent of the Government. Everybody knows that judges are independent, but the term “legal member” does not carry the same message.
Calling people “judges” does not mean that tribunals will be run differently. The judges will continue to treat appellants and complainants as they do now. Theywill give matters the same consideration and do soas informally as possible. We intend to retain the informality of tribunal hearings. During hearings, judges will not need to use their titles. In the AIT, legally qualified members are known as immigration judges, and senior immigration judges are usually addressed as “Sir” or “Madam”. That is the guidance from the tribunal president.
The amendments echo those tabled by Lord Kingsland in Grand Committee. We resisted them then and we resist them now. In doing so, we have the support of Mr. Justice Hodge, the president of the AIT, and Mr. Paul Shaerf, the president of the Council of Immigration Judges, both of whom wrote to me expressly on this matter. Mr. Justice Hodge wrote:
“I know that there is very widespread support within the tribunals judiciary as a whole for the use of the title to be adopted. The adoption of the title will be seen by them as a recognition of the important work that is done by the Tribunals Service for the administration of justice as a whole. Further, I believe every effort should be made to maintain and promote the cohesion of the judicial ‘family’ and conferring the title ‘judge’ on those who adjudicate in administrative tribunals will serve this end.”

James Brokenshire: Obviously, we are talking about nomenclature in large measure, so there are fine definitions. I am interested to hear that the Minister has obtained some backing and guidance from one part of the judiciary. Has she consulted the judiciary more widely, particularly Court of Appeal and High Court judges, to establish whether they feel that the changes will have any bearing on their status or standing? Has she considered redescribing tribunals as courts, because they are, ultimately, seeking to establish matters of fact and law? Given that she wants a fairly standard and level approach, has she considered making those changes?

Vera Baird: There is no indication that the higher judiciary have any reservations about the nomenclature; indeed, Mr. Justice Hodge is, of course, a High Court judge. “Courts” is not a good name for the tribunals because tribunals are more informal, accessible and inquisitorial than courts. “Tribunals” is therefore the right name for the institution and the staff who will the fill the adjudicating role.
Mr. Shaerf said that
“the council of immigration judges believed that the introduction and use of the title ‘immigration judge’”
instead of adjudicator
“had worked very well and that such a title is more readily understood by appellants and other tribunal users than the former title of...adjudicator.”
He said that
“the use of the title ‘judge’ is not a material factor in establishing with what degree of formality a hearing is conducted”
and that any attempt to remove the title
“would cause considerable dismay, consternation and discontent amongst many of the Council’s members.”
We do not intend to do that.

Tobias Ellwood: For many people who come across a tribunal, it might well be the second time that they have been confronted by the judicial system, unless they are a frequent offender, in which case they may be a regular. The Minister mentioned district judges, High Court judges and immigration judges, all of which terms have a description prior to the word “judge”. Would it not therefore be sensible to call the judges that we are debating “tribunals judges”? The Conservatives are concerned that the name, qualification and position suggested by the word “judge” is being diluted, which is not good.

Vera Baird: The prefixes point out what the function of those kinds of judges are. They are referred to by their staff as “judges”. There is nothing to be gained by complicating the nomenclature. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman meant by referring to offenders—I hope that he understands that we are not talking about criminal tribunals. To suggest that the high calibre of people who are going to be put into the tribunals would, by their nature, dilute, weaken, or undermine the calibre of the term “judge” is offensive. Frankly, I suggest that he supports the clause and discards the amendment as soon as possible.

Emily Thornberry: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the public will use the term “judges” whatever official title is used? When members of the public who are not legally qualified appear before people who judge them, they will refer to such people as “judges”. The public see the people who judge as “judges”, so why do we not give them the name that appears on the tin?

Vera Baird: Actually, I do not agree. Calling people names such as “commissioners”, “adjudicators” and “umpires” can easily suggest that there is some particular curiosity about the nature of their considerations. Calling a person a “judge” makes it clear what their function is. Furthermore, it is the hallmark of independence—the judiciary is known for its complete independence. Although my hon. Friend comes to the same conclusion, she comes from a different point of view. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister has explained the situation clearly. I hope that she does not object to my prompting debate because it is important for us to discuss these matters and to probe the Government. Conservative Members had concerns, many of which she addressed, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Vera Baird: Clause 4 and schedule 2 set out provisions relating to judges and other members of the first-tier tribunal. The hon. Member for North-West Norfolk asked if I minded him raising issues concerning amendment No. 2. Of course, I do not mind. However, I worry enormously when concepts such as diluting the calibre of judges are tossed about in Public Bill Committees merely for the purpose of probing. Obviously, that was not wise because we are only just setting up the new structures and hoping that everybody will contribute and feel that they are highly regarded members of the new teams.
 Currently, most tribunals include both legally qualified members and members without legal qualifications. The qualifications of legal members vary from tribunal to tribunal. The range of non-legally qualified members varies a great deal. There are medical practitioners, accountants, people with experience of disability issues, people with experience of the armed services, and many other lay members. That structure will continue.
Judges and other members of the new tribunals will be transferred from existing tribunals, appointed by the Lord Chancellor following selection by the Judicial Appointments Commission, or hold their office in the new system by virtue of another office that they hold in the courts or tribunals. The use of such ex officio members will enable judges with the appropriate expertise and experience to be brought into the new structure on the invitation of the senior president to help out, in effect.
Some non-legally qualified members of other tribunals will automatically be members of the new tribunals. The same principle will apply within the structure of the new tribunals so that, for instance, a judge of the upper tribunal will automatically be an appointed judge of the first-tier tribunal. Deployment will be under the control of the senior president of tribunals and, in the case of judges drawn from the courts, that will be in conjunction with the relevant territorial chief justice.
In order to safeguard the independence of the tribunals, the judiciary and appointed and transferred-in judges are protected by a prohibition on removal without the concurrence of the relevant chief justice. Judges and other members of the first-tier tribunal, transferred-in judges and salaried members are further protected in that they may be removed only by the Lord Chancellor and only for inability or misbehaviour. The senior president has responsibility for maintaining arrangements for the training, welfare and guidance of judges and other members of the first-tier tribunal.
Judges and members will be able to sit in morethan one jurisdiction if they have the right skills and experience. That is undoubtedly an advantage. The tribunal reforms will create a single pool of judges and non-legal members, secure in their independence, free from political interference, and encompassing a wide range of experience and expertise.

Henry Bellingham: Of course we support schedule 2, and I want to put on record that we in the Opposition have the greatest admiration for the calibre, commitment, determination and conscientious approach of thetribunal judges.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East was not for one moment trying to undermine those judges. He was simply considering them in the context of the judiciary as a whole, comparing a chairman of a tribunal who might come from a military background with, for example, a High Court judge or maybe a lord justice of appeal. The point that he was making was about the comparison between the lower-tier legal members and a Law Lord or Appeal Court judge. I am pleased to be able to clarify that, and we support the clause.

Simon Hughes: I wonder whether the Minister could tell us as of now how many tribunal judges are full time and part time. Will she break that down by territory and tell us how many are women and how many are men? How many come from the black or minority ethnic communities? How many are lay people who are not legally qualified? I support the idea that lay people are coming into the Tribunals Service, and I have always supported that, but it would be interesting to know what numbers are in that category and what percentage they make up. I expect that the list might be immediately available, but if it is not will she let ushave it at the earliest available moment? There were announcements last week about widening judicial appointments, which are welcome on the Liberal Democrat Benches. If we are to know how much we need to do that work, we need to know the basis from which it started.

Vera Baird: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that this is a Committee and not a pub quiz. There are roughly 450 full-time tribunal members and about 6,000 part-time tribunal members. I have no doubt that their diversity will enhance the diversity of the judiciary in general in respect of class, race and gender. I will write to the hon. Gentleman on the statistics.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Judges and other members of the First-tier Tribunal

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in schedule 2, page 118, line 20, at end insert ‘or’.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6, in schedule 2, page 118, line 22, leave out from ‘standing’ to end of line 25.
No. 8, in schedule 3, page 122, line 18, at end insert ‘or’.
No. 9, in schedule 3, page 122, line 20, leave out from ‘standing’ to end of line 23.

Henry Bellingham: We are looking at paragraph 1(2) of schedule 2 and the power to appoint judges of first-tier tribunals. This is a probing amendment. Would the Minister tell us the meaning of this sub-paragraph:
“A person is eligible for appointment under sub-paragraph (1) only if the person...(d) in the Lord Chancellor’s opinion, has gained experience in law which makes the person as suitable for appointment as if the person satisfied any of paragraphs (a)to (c).”
Paragraph 1(2)(a) to (c) refers to people with legal qualifications. What kind of influence will the Lord Chancellor bring to bear on his decision under that provision? What kind of legal experience would make that person suitable for an appointment? Of course, the Lord Chancellor’s views in this regard will not appear to be totally subjective. I would be grateful if the Minister filled the Committee in on what sort of considerations the Lord Chancellor will have.
 Will the Minister comment on whether that provision runs counter to the philosophy in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005? Have Ministers had discussions with Baroness Prashar, who has done a superb job with the Judicial Appointments Commission? Has she had any  input into the thinking behind how those appointments are going to be made, particularly for those people who do not have a legal background but who may have a great deal to offer? We do not want to preclude them being appointed but we would like some more detailed information. Therefore, it is a probing amendment.

Vera Baird: We are talking not about appointments but about widening the pool of eligibility. The provision does not run counter to the separation of powers or the principles of the Constitutional Reform Act. If we accepted the amendments, which we will not do, we would limit the Lord Chancellor’s power to extend eligibility for judicial office, and limit the ability to appoint someone who has the necessary skills and knowledge but who does not have a professional UK qualification.
The hon. Gentleman asked me what sort of person that might be. It is most likely to be a legal academic or someone qualified in Europe or in a Commonwealth jurisdiction. In a different statute, these provisions have already enabled a small number of appointments to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal and to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, which already have these eligibility requirements in place. We see no reason why they should not be extended to the new first-tier and upper tribunals in recognition of the specialised fields in which those tribunals operate. Having particular skills or experience in a specialised area can be invaluable to the operation of the tribunal.
As I said, it is important to remember that the extension of eligibility is being proposed, not suitability. All applicants will continue to have to meet the rigorous assessment and the demanding criteria set by Baroness Prashar, and I join the hon. Gentleman in praising her and lauding her highly. Rigorous criteria are set, which will be applied. Merit and merit only will be the criteria on any recommendation for appointment. I hope that he is reassured and that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.

Henry Bellingham: The Minister has a very reassuring manner and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 5

Judges and other members of the Upper Tribunal

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Vera Baird: Clause 5 and schedule 3 are parallel provisions about the membership of the upper tribunal. As is the case with the first-tier tribunal, judges and other members of the upper one will either be transferred in, be appointed by the Lord Chancellor following selection by the Judicial Appointments Commission or hold their office in the new system by virtue of another office that they hold in the courts or tribunals. The latter criteria will enable judges who have the appropriate expertise to be brought into the new structure, on the invitation of the senior president, to help out. Again, as in the first-tier tribunal, some non-legally qualified members of other tribunals will automatically be members of the new tribunal. Appointed judges of the upper tribunal will be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, on the Lord Chancellor’s recommendation, except where a member of an existing tribunal is transferred into the upper tribunal, and appointment will follow the JAC selection process.
In order to safeguard the independence of the tribunal judiciary, appointed and transferred-in judges are protected by a prohibition on removal without the concurrence of the relevant chief justice. Judges and other members of the upper tribunal and transferred-in judges and members who are appointed on a salaried basis are protected further and can be removed only by the Lord Chancellor on the grounds of inability or misbehaviour.
Judges and members of the upper tribunal willbe partly ex officio judges and members. Their deployment, again, will be under the control of the senior president, with the concurrence of the relevant chief justice. The Lord Chancellor will have a powerto appoint deputy judges to the upper tribunal, particularly if they have special expertise that will be helpful. As is the case with the first-tier tribunal, the senior president will maintain arrangements for the training, welfare and guidance of judges and other members of the upper tribunal.

James Brokenshire: Will the Minister clarify whether the powers are structured in such a way as to allow the appointment of retired High Court judges, so that they may be drafted in to meet the criteria?

Vera Baird: We have considered whether it is necessary to table an amendment to provide for that, because it seems a good idea. If the hon. Gentleman is content to leave that with us, we will produce some definitive answer about a way forward on Report.
Judges and members will be able to sit in more than one jurisdiction if they have the skills and experience. Judges of the upper tribunal will automatically be judges of the first-tier tribunal. These tribunal reforms will create a single pool of tribunal judges and non-legal members, who are secure in their independence and free from political interference, and they will encompass a wide range of experience and expertise.

Simon Hughes: I am sorry. The Minister may say several times that this is not a pub quiz, but I will continue to ask questions that she has answers to and we do not. Can she tell us, please, what is the lowest and highest remuneration—the range of remuneration—for people who are full-time tribunal members at the moment? What is the starting point? What is the total bill, which we currently pay, for tribunal members and judges across the four jurisdictions?

Vera Baird: I should think that the answer is ever such a lot, but I shall see if I can be more specific, by letter, later in the day. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman does not do his own research.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 6

Certain judges who are also judges of First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in clause 6, page 4, line 40, at end insert ‘or’.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 11, in clause 6, page 4, line 41, leave out from ‘Ireland’ to end of line 42.
No. 12, in clause 6, page 4, line 43, leave out (i) and insert (h).

Henry Bellingham: This is a small, probing amendment. I do not plan to detain the Committee for more than a minute or so. The clause is headed, “Certain judges who are also judges of First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal” and runs through a number of categories of different people, including judges of a Court of Session and circuit judges. The amendment would remove the final category, which
“is a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts)”.
We are trying to maintain consistency. The clause confers automatic qualifications to various types of judges to become tribunal judges. We are not saying that
“a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts)”
should not be appointed; we are saying that they should not necessarily qualify automatically. The list is wide ranging. Subsection (1) takes it too far.
The amendment is a probing amendment, and we are entitled to ask questions. I am not being pedantic; I am being, I hope, consistent in my approach. I should like the Minister to clarify the reason why the clause extends that automatic right as far as it does.

Vera Baird: As the hon. Gentleman said, the point of the clause is to supplement the judges of new tribunals with judges from the courts. Most tribunal judges will be transferred from existing tribunals—the EAT, the AIT or the JAC—to one of the new offices. We expect that judges from the courts will be deployed in small numbers from time to time to bring in skill and expertise that is not readily available, or just to help out. The list of the people who can be used in that way comprises almost all the salaried judicial offices in the mainstream core. None of them has a right to sit in the tribunal; they can sit only if the senior president invites them and the relevant chief justice agrees. We have made the pool as large as possible, because the necessary expertise might reside in all sorts of unexpected places, and
“a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts)”
should not be excluded from that consideration. They are not only experts in crime; they often have to evaluate technical evidence, and they have a great deal of day-to-day, real life experience in the lower courts. Some sit on family matters, too, and undertake such work as licensing appeals, so they have a diversity of experience.
The users of tribunals are entitled to expect the best arrangements that we can manage, but that objective will not be met if we exclude suitable judges from hearing a case because of unnecessary restrictions on their deployment. I hope that that explanation is sufficient to persuade the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment to the vote.

Henry Bellingham: In the light of what the Minister has said, it would indeed be churlish to press the amendment. I am grateful to her for her clarification, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

Chambers: jurisdiction and presidents

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 7, page 5, line 3, after ‘Tribunals’ insert
‘and after consultation with such persons as he considers appropriate’.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 37, in clause 7, page 5, line 30, after ‘other’ insert
‘and after consultation with such persons as he considers appropriate’.

Henry Bellingham: The amendments are, again, probing amendments. The Bill states that the Lord Chancellor must consult such persons as he considers appropriate. What exactly does that mean? I should like to ask the Minister about the Constitutional Reform Act and the separation of powers inherent in it, because I am concerned that a great deal of theBill is moving slowly but surely—indeed, gravitating relentlessly—away from the spirit of that earlier legislation, hence the probing nature of the amendments. Will she clarify those points?

Simon Hughes: I have a couple of additional questions, and the Minister will see that I have added my name to the amendments, both of which come from the Law Society of Scotland, which raised questions with the hon. Gentleman and with me. The amendments probe the wider question of what is behind the organisation of the new system. There are later amendments about what we will call the groupings of the organisation, but it would be helpful if the Minister explained the theory behind the way in which the tribunal system will be divided into areas. For example, the European Court of Human Rights sits in chambers subdivided into groups of judges, so that more people can deal with cases at any one time. There is obviously a logic in having groupings, but if she could flesh out the thinking behind the provisions, that would be helpful not only to us but to others who have an interest in such matters.

Vera Baird: The amendments in the group concern clause 7, which is about chambers, which is the term that has been selected to define the way in whichthe new Tribunals Service is likely to be grouped. At present, in order to form chambers the Lord Chancellor requires the concurrence of the senior president. The amendment would additionally require him to consult more widely about the formation of chambers. Amendment No. 37 relates to the assignment of functions between the chambers. At present the Lord Chancellor or the senior president make the order to assign the functions, each with the concurrence of the other. Amendment No. 37 would also require whichever of them was concerned to consult.
A detailed policy statement has been published that explains how the order-making powers in the Bill will be used, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. If it is inconvenient for any member of the Committee to get a copy of that policy statement, I am sure that we can bring some to the Committee, if there are not some here already. The statement sets out how it is proposed the order-making powers will be used. That document makes it clear that the Government have already undertaken to consult widely and fully on the establishment of the chamber structure, as one would expect with such a new structure. The statement also gives an early indication of the Government’s thinking on both the criteria for groupings and possible groups for the first tier, which will be useful for hon. Members.
Our starting point is that there might be three chambers. The hon. Member for North Southwarkand Bermondsey asked me about the Government’s thinking. We are thinking in the direction of one chamber to deal with tax and regulation, one to deal with social security, and one to deal with mental health and related welfare issues. However, the document also makes it clear that a final decision on the initial shape of the chambers will be taken only after a full and wide consultation, which we plan to hold later this year. That will allow everybody who will use the chamber structure—office holders, judicial leaders, tribunal users and their representatives—to have the maximum involvement in the development of the structure.
We plainly have no resistance to consultation andwe intend to hold it. The only difficultly in reinforcingthat consultation as proposed in the amendment isas follows: quite minor changes to the allocation of functions might subsequently need to occur, yet we would have encumbered ourselves with a broad duty to consult in every case, which might be disproportionate. 
I hope that I have helped the hon. Member forNorth Southwark and Bermondsey to understand our embryonic thinking. We shall supply him with a copy of the policy document, so that he can study it further. I also hope that I have satisfied the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk that we are very much in favour of full and wide consultation, but that we do not wantany subsequent minor changes to be saddled with a disproportionate demand that we should consult. I therefore hope that I have persuaded him to withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for that confirmation. She has made it clear that the Government will hold that wider consultation. In the light of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in clause 7, page 5, line 4, leave out ‘chambers’ and insert ‘divisions’.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenientto discuss the following amendments: No. 15, in clause 7, page 5, line 6, leave out ‘chamber’ and insert ‘division’.
No. 16, in clause 7, page 5, line 7, leave out ‘chamber’ and insert ‘division’.
No. 18, in clause 7, page 5, line 9, leave out ‘chamber’ and insert ‘division’.
No. 19, in clause 7, page 5, line 11, leave out ‘chamber’ and insert ‘division’.
No. 20, in clause 7, page 5, line 12, leave out first ‘chamber’ and insert ‘division’.
No. 21, in clause 7, page 5, line 12, leave out second ‘chamber’ and insert ‘division’.
No. 22, in clause 7, page 5, line 14, leave out ‘chamber’ and insert ‘division’.
No. 23, in clause 7, page 5, line 15, leave out ‘Chamber’ and insert ‘Division’.
No. 25, in clause 7, page 5, line 17, leave out first ‘chamber’ and insert ‘division’.
No. 26, in clause 7, page 5, line 17, leave out second ‘Chamber’ and insert ‘Division’.
No. 27, in clause 7, page 5, line 19, leave out ‘chamber’ and insert ‘division’.
No. 28, in clause 7, page 5, line 21, leave out first ‘Chamber’ and insert ‘Division’.
No. 29, in clause 7, page 5, line 21, leave out second ‘chamber’ and insert ‘division’.
No. 30, in clause 7, page 5, line 22, leave out ‘chamber’ and insert ‘division’.
No. 31, in clause 7, page 5, line 24, leave out first ‘Chamber’ and insert ‘Division’.
No. 32, in clause 7, page 5, line 24, leave out second ‘chamber’ and insert ‘division’.
No. 33, in clause 7, page 5, line 26, leave out first ‘Chamber’ and insert ‘Division’.
No. 34, in clause 7, page 5, line 26, leave out second ‘Chamber’ and insert ‘Division’.
No. 35, in clause 7, page 5, line 28, leave out ‘Chamber’ and insert ‘Division’.
No. 36, in clause 7, page 5, line 28, leave out ‘chambers’ and insert ‘divisions’.
No. 38, in clause 7, page 5, line 32, leave out ‘chambers’ and insert ‘divisions’.
No. 48, in clause 7, page 5, line 34, leave out ‘chambers’ and insert ‘divisions’.

Henry Bellingham: This group of amendments looks horrendous. It looks like the debate could go on for hours and hours, but I assure the Committee that it will not. The group is really very simple and looks much worse than it is.
Our approach is twofold. First, we have tabledthe amendments because we feel that language is important. I said earlier that the tribunals need to be as user-friendly as possible. There is a body of opinion that takes the view that the word “chambers” is old-fashioned, formal and little bit arcane. If we want the system to be as accessible as possible, we may have to look at the language. “Division” is more purposeful, focused and, perhaps, less formal. I ask the Minister to consider changing “chamber” to “division”. She will correct me if I am wrong, but Lord Denning once said, “It matters less what you say, but how you are heard.” If we are saying strongly that these will be informal bodies, it makes sense to change the terminology and use “division”, which has more consumer resonance than “chamber”. That is the first raison d’être for the amendments.
I should like to probe the Minister further aboutHer Majesty’s Government’s intentions in relation to the organisation of the new tribunal system and the different chambers/divisions. Obviously, we would like those to be called divisions. Can the Minister tell us a little more about the proposed groupings? Presumably, the plan is to group together similar jurisdictions, thus allowing judicial deployment to be as flexible as possible. Presumably, that is what she has in mind. We must also ensure that expertise is maintained. How are we going to maintain expertise within the new system?
The Minister mentioned the policy statement. Many Committee members will have got their copies from the Library. I am not asking her to do our research for us, but she could make life easier by having copies of the policy statement put on a table in the Room, because some Committee members may not have had time to collect theirs from the Library.
We are talking about work in progress. The Minister said a moment ago that there is substantial work in progress and a substantial consultation taking place. I should like her to confirm that HMG will go down the subject-matter route, rather than the geography route, in grouping chambers throughout the country. We are concerned about the work load of the legal members, particularly the non-legally qualified tribunal members. When the Minister mentioned that a moment ago, she hinted, as the policy statement makes it clear, that the Government are moving away from the current silo system into three main groupings and gave some details about what those will be. Will we have the same pattern for the upper tribunals as well?
 Finally, will the Minister tells us how the consultation process is going? It is an important consultation. Are all the different people who need to be consulted being consulted? What form is the consultation taking? What time scale is she considering in the process? I move the amendment in the spirit of my two arguments for this probing exercise.

Simon Hughes: I shall be brief because I know that this matter was raised in the House of Lords and that there was discussion about the names. Unless the Minister is going to tell me that something has changed in the last couple of days, the courts in this country are divided into divisions, not chambers. That appears to work well. However, I am all for trying to use words that the public relate to, rather than words that sound more Victorian or old-fashioned. I should be grateful if the Minister would seriously consider the amendments, which would make the system sound more accessible to the public. That must be in everybody’s interest.

Vera Baird: The last group of amendments that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk moved was tabled in the House of Lords Grand Committee, but not moved. The discussion last time round was, in effect, held under the present group of amendments, so I shall try not to be too repetitive but to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions as directly as I can.
The proposal would be to have within chambers, jurisdictions that were similar in nature and of similar subject matter. I guess that that would also require similar skills of scrutiny and similar experience. That is what is in our minds at the moment, and we are thinking of that direction, rather than geography. We will consult widely, although the consultation is not yet under way. There will be a full consultation document in the autumn, and any orders that emerge to set up the chambers will be subject to affirmative order. There will be a full opportunity for everyone who wishes to do so to contribute.
On the work load, people will be moved in and moved across jurisdictions only if they agree, so they will have an understanding of their own work load. Whether the upper tribunal will have chambers to correspond with those of the first-tier tribunal is a very good question, but we have not yet resolved it. We suspect that if there were, they would follow those that we have in mind for the lower tribunal. We are interested in having input on that.
On the timescale, we will start this autumn, and I presume that there will be the usual Cabinet Office requirement of three months’ consultation. Happily, there will be every opportunity for people to have some input.
The other limb of the amendments and the only one that has not been covered is the chambers. The point of creating chambers is to concentrate expertise. They will be set up when their nature has been determined by the Lord Chancellor, with the concurrence of the senior president. The pointers are in the policy document.
The word “chambers” will not be in everyday use. The Law Society or the Law Society of Scotland criticised the word because it thought that it was confusing and not modern. I am cheered that the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk believes that language is important and I suppose that he will give three cheers for the gender-neutral drafting that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House announced. We agree totally that language is important and we are pleased to have the hon. Gentleman’s support. Indeed, we shall make him an honorary sister later.
To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, Sir Andrew Leggatt proposed using the word “division” because it is consistent with terminology in the High Court. We chose “chambers” because it is different and is not used daily in the courts. They will call a tribunal whatever they call it now, but “chambers” as opposed to “division” is intended to be a little more flexible because the Court of Appeal and the High Court, which have jurisdictional divisions, are quite rigid in that effect. We chose a word that indicates flexibility in jurisdiction.
I hope that that explanation is sufficient to persuade the hon. Gentleman that the language is tolerable, and that he will not press his amendment.

Tobias Ellwood: The Minister mentioned a consultation exercise in the autumn. Will she explain a little more about that consultation for the record and how it dovetails in with any legislation that we may confirm this week?

Vera Baird: I have already set out the nature of the consultation. The Cabinet Office requires it to be three months and there will be a full paper. We have already started the process in the sense that we have issued a detailed policy statement so that people can see which way our thoughts are going and prepare themselves for the fuller consultation document. It will be the usual open consultation and anyone who wants to make a submission can do so. I am sure that Ministers will actively look for responses and input from relevant people, which is common form. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have every intention of making the consultation as thorough as possible. A whole series of new structures is being proposed and it is important that we leave no stone unturned to ensure that we get the structures right.
The Bill contains some detailed provisions on how the new structure will function—provisions which set out the essential bedrock guarantees of independence, security of tenure and so on for the new tribunal judiciary. Further detail will emerge in the form of orders and regulations after we have consulted within the framework, and after people have had an opportunity to digest how the framework would work. Those measures will have to be considered by the House by way of affirmative resolution, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman need worry.

Simon Hughes: I have heard the Minister’s arguments and it is not the most important matter, but will she reflect on the wording? In addition—I shall not press it now and if necessary we can address it on Report—will she say whether the senior president-designate has expressed a view on the issue? If so, what is that view?

Vera Baird: No, he has not.

Henry Bellingham: It is always nice when a Minister describes a question as being a good one and says that it is being considered, such as my question about the upper tribunals and whether the same system will be used for them. She has pledged to my hon. Friendthe Member for Hornchurch to consider a possible amendment on the clause that we considered earlier, so we have had not too bad a morning’s work, particularly as hon. Members from my party have not been told off for not doing our own research.

Simon Hughes: The Government have the civil service.

Henry Bellingham: Indeed, and we do not have the civil service.
Will the Minister continue to reflect on the terminology, because it is important in relation to the public’s perceptions of the legal system? That is why I hope that she will not have a completely closed mind on the amendment and on the use of the word “divisions”. Obviously, we shall not press the amendment to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will be prepared to continue the discussion on terminology. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in clause 7, page 5, line 8, leave out ‘, or two persons,’.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 24, in clause 7, page 5,line 16, leave out subsection (5).

Henry Bellingham: This is a short, sharp, probing amendment. Clause 7(2) refers to one or two persons being required to preside over each chamber. I am intrigued as to why two people are needed, and I am concerned that two different people might chair a tribunal during the course of one hearing. Could that happen? It is unlikely, but will the Minister clarify the point?

Vera Baird: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The answer to his specific question is that one could not change the personnel in the middle of the case.I recall once going to do a university disciplinary tribunal case for 10 students who had been demonstrating. Half way through the summer during which the case was being heard, the academics on the tribunal went off on their usual interesting fact-finding missions overseas, and I came in one morning to find that half the members of the tribunal who had been present for the previous three weeks had gone, and completely different people had replaced them. The appellate tribunal had no difficulty whatever in quashing such convictions as there had been, and there would be a similar outcome in any other cases of swapping in the middle of a case. So the answer is no.
The purpose is one of flexibility. We have not yet worked out, through the consultation and input that I have mentioned, exactly what the jurisdictions will be, what the chambers will consist of, and what the exact size of chambers will be. It is hard to predict how many presidents will be required to cover each chamber. There might be good reasons to have two people presiding over one chamber, because of job sharing,for instance, or other reasons of flexibility. If two chambers merged to create a single chamber, it would probably be a good idea to keep two presidents. It is all about flexibility, and there is nothing to be gained from restricting it while so much is still at large. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Henry Bellingham: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Vera Baird: Clause 7 and schedule 4—the latterhas yet to be debated—set up the boundaries of jurisdiction between the first and upper tiers. Together, they impose a duty on the senior president to developa policy on the assignment of judges to chambersand to enable tribunal judges to sit across different jurisdictions. Once existing tribunals transfer in, a wide range of specialist jurisdictions will be brought together, and it would dilute expertise and damage the service if all judges and members were expected to deal with all kinds of case.
The Government want a structure, a grouping of jurisdictions, so that similar work can be dealt with appropriately by those who have the relevant experience to deal with it. I call them chambers, but I keep an open mind on that at the request of the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. At the moment, however, the term chambers commends itself to us. The division into chambers will, I guess, follow the current jurisdiction or boundaries, but it is intended to be more flexible. The Lord Chancellor and the senior president can create chambers by order.
Schedule 4 deals with the appointment of presidents by the Lord Chancellor. The presidents are intended to provide judicial leadership within their chambers and to guarantee levels of expertise, so that the chambers will be able to issue guidance on changes in law and practice as they relate to the functions allocated to their chambers. Deputy chambers presidents will take on functions that can be delegated when necessary. Some chambers presidents may be appointed directly; others might come from the senior judiciary. The Lord Chancellor has to consult the senior president at all times about such appointments, and if a senior judge is appointed, he will have to seek nomination from the relevant chief justice. If no appropriate candidatesfor tribunal presidents come forward, the Judicial Appointments Commission will suggest some.
No one will be able to preside at the same time over more than one chamber in either the first tier or the upper tribunal, but someone might preside over one chamber of the upper tribunal and a first tier tribunal at the same time. We want to use our experienced and skilled judiciary as flexibly as possible, and the senior president has responsibility for policy on the matter. To ensure the openness and transparency of the system, the senior president will have to publish that policy, saying how he proposes to assign judges and members. To ensure appropriate executive accountability to Parliament—something that troubles the hon. Gentleman, particularly because of the resource implications—the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor will be required before the senior president’s policy can be adopted.
Panel composition requirements will be set by order of the Lord Chancellor; that will be done jurisdiction by jurisdiction. The number and qualifications of members assigned to sit on particular appeals must take account of recourse implications, and scrutiny will be provided. The chamber structure will enable the system to adapt swiftly as circumstances change, while guaranteeing the experience and expertise that is so important to the user.
Clearly, much has yet to be fixed and determined through consultation, but clause 7 provides a good framework. I therefore move that it stands part ofthe Bill.

Brooks Newmark: I apologise, Madam Chairman, for not catching your eye a little earlier.
I support the Minister in the use of gender neutral language. It is important. As co-chairman of the Conservative party’s women2win group, I approve. On a technical point, I use the phrase “Madam Chairman” because the man of “chairman” comes from the Latin derivative of mano—a hand on the chair—and has nothing to do with men or women.
I turn to the substantive question.

It being twenty-five minutes past Ten o’clock,The Chairmanadjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at One o’clock.